<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (4) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45955</link>
    <description>Penalties under sections 11AC and 11AB were considered unsustainable for an incident occurring before those provisions came into force, because penal provisions cannot operate retrospectively. The analysis also noted that the underlying duty demand had already been set aside by the Tribunal, so once the principal demand ceased to exist, no penalty could logically survive on the same charges. The reference petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:13:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45955</link>
      <description>Penalties under sections 11AC and 11AB were considered unsustainable for an incident occurring before those provisions came into force, because penal provisions cannot operate retrospectively. The analysis also noted that the underlying duty demand had already been set aside by the Tribunal, so once the principal demand ceased to exist, no penalty could logically survive on the same charges. The reference petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>